Exploring the causes and impacts of falls among ambulators with spinal cord injury using photovoice: a mixed-methods study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study explored: (1) fall circumstances experienced by ambulators with spinal cord injury (SCI) over a 6-month period, (2) the impacts of falls-related injuries and fall risk and (3) their preferences/recommendations for fall prevention. DESIGN: A sequential explanatory mixed-methods design with two phases. SETTING: A Canadian SCI rehabilitation hospital and community setting. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-three ambulators with SCI participated in phase 1 and eight participants that fell in phase 1 participated in phase 2. METHODS: In phase 1, fall circumstances were tracked using a survey that was completed each time a participant fell during the 6-month tracking period. Phase 2 involved photovoice; participants took photographs of factors that influenced their fall risk and how their fall risk impacted their work/recreational activities. Participants discussed the photographs and topics related to fall prevention in an individual interview and a focus group. RESULTS: Of the 33 participants, 21 fell in 6 months. Falls commonly occurred in the home while participants were changing positions or walking. Most falls occurred in the morning or afternoon. In phase 2, interviews and focus group discussion revealed three themes: (1) falls are caused by bodily impairments (eg, impaired reactive response during slips and trips and weakness and altered sensation in legs/feet), (2) impacts of fall-related injuries and fall risk (eg, psychosocial effects of fall-related injuries, limiting community participation due to the risk of falling and activity-dependent concern of falling) and (3) approaches to fall prevention (eg, fall prevention strategies used, components of fall prevention and utility of professional fall prevention strategies/interventions). CONCLUSIONS: Fall prevention interventions/strategies should focus on minimising a person's fall risk within their home as most falls occurred in the home environment. Ambulators with SCI would benefit from education and awareness about common fall circumstances that they may encounter in their daily lives.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".